Are Brahman and the God of Abraham the same entity?

[Rainbow Mage]

Well, what do you think? Are they? I personally find Brahman much nicer, but I'll let the believers speak.

::Sits back and watches::

 

[Madhuri]

Jesus makes a nice equivalent to Bramha seeing as Bramha is also first 'born' of the Creator and from him is manifest the material universe.

But no, I don't believe so. IMO the Abrahamic scriptures are mostly fictional, though based on more ancient belief systems.

 

[Madhuri]

Oh, sorry. You said Brahman. I thought this thread was in response to Magalaan's explanation of JHWH/Bramha. My mistake.

 

[Madhuri]

Also, God of Abraham is personal. Brahman is impersonal. Brahman is all-pervasive consciousness.

 

[dawny0826]

I believe that God can be approached and understood differently by different people, but I don't know enough about Brahman and hinduism in general to really comment.

So, I'll have to sit back and learn from others.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

See that's what I think Madhuri, that Brahman/Netjer is mostly impersonal.

 

[Madhuri]

I believe that Brahman is entirely impersonal. But I see Brahman is one aspect of God. The other two aspects are Paramatma and Bhagavan.

 

[Levite]

Well, what do you think? Are they? I personally find Brahman much nicer, but I'll let the believers speak.

::Sits back and watches::

Probably varies according to what kind of Hindu theology is being used. I have spoken now with several Vaishnavic Hindus, and according to the theology that they explained to me (presuming I understood correctly), I think they and we Jews are ultimately worshipping the same One God. We just see Him very differently, and choose to experience Him in different ways. And we have different cultural and historical teachings about how to try and do what He wishes of us.

 

[Breathe]

I don't think they are, for the reasons Madhuri mentioned - Brahman is the impersonal aspect of God, and the Supreme Absolute. Unless one takes a more mystical view of Yahweh than the one presented from a literal perspective when reading the Bible. However, for the Hindus who hold a more dualistic interpretation to their philosophy, then one could say: possibly. Some may, but others may see Yahweh more like Brahma than Brahman (which in the case of those with dualistic interpretations, Brahman is usually a synonym for Shiva, Vishnu, or Shakti (though I think finding dualistic Shaktas may be slightly difficult))

Just my two cents.

 

[Madhuri]

Hey Odion, I don't know about all dualists but I grew up with the idea that Brahman is simply an impersonal aspect of the Supreme (Krishna/Vishnu). Brahman was described as the effulgence of the Form of the Lord, and that effulgence is the all-pervasive consciousness.

 

[Onkara]

God(s) are not objects by definition so cannot be objectified. Any similarity or differences come down to how we communicate our understanding. This is why there are so many explanations and scriptures throughout man's history, as each culture/generation have different ideas, words and minds.

The real point, as I personally see it, is to arrive at being one or being closer to "God" and until that happens, it is closer to speculation. Fun as it is and useful it might be

 

[Breathe]

Yeah Madhuri, I've seen some dualists who believe Brahman is totally impersonal, and others who believe it is merely a synonym for Hari. I found this kind of strange, though, because I've seen that some dualists believe as you do with regards to Brahman, being the impersonal Ultimate, but I've spoken to quite a few dualists (maybe it's just my weird luck, I'm usually the exception to rules) who seemed to hold Brahman as Vishnu. Or maybe they misheard me and thought I meant Bhagavan. Who knows for sure.

 

[Onkara]

I guess it might become more difficult if we include Avatars, such as Sri Krishna, as manifestations of Brahman?

 

[Breathe]

I think so. That's one of the reasons why I don't believe in avatars as literal entities.

 

[Onkara]

I think so. That's one of the reasons why I don't believe in avatars as literal entities.

The problem is at what point can we draw the line? I think Sanatana Dharma is quite flexible, but I am pretty sure someone would need to accept Avatars to be a G. Vaishanva for example?

 

[1AOA1]

Well, what do you think? Are they? I personally find Brahman much nicer, but I'll let the believers speak.

::Sits back and watches::

Multiple

 

[Breathe]

Yeah, you are right. One would have a lot of problems attempting to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava if they did not believe in avatars - well, up to a point anyway. People of that path may be more lenient about non-belief in say, Matsya as an actual entity than they would when it comes to Krishna and Rama.

Sanatana Dharma is very flexible, but some of the schools can be less so, I guess.

 

[Valjean]

The God of Abraham is a personage and an entity. Brahman is neither. It's just undifferentiated being.

 

[BruceDLimber]

In the Baha'i view, yes!

ALL the major religions were founded by the One God, Who has many different names in the various religions and cultures!

Just a few of these include:
In fact, God has MANY names and titles, in the various languages and cultures, and they are all equally acceptable!

Just a few of these names are: God, Boje, Jehovah, Dieu, Wankantanka, El, Gott, Yahweh, Dios, Brahman, Elohim, Allah, Bog, Adonai, and Parvadegar.

ANY of these are just fine!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Muffled]

The God of Abraham is a personage and an entity. Brahman is neither. It's just undifferentiated being.

Undifferentiated being is worthless. You might as well worship a rock. However IMO no such being exists.